On September 25, the District Court in Denver, Colorado issued its
Memorandum Opinion
and Order [34 pages in PDF]. This case is Mainstream Marketing Service,
TMG Marketing Inc., and American
Teleservices Association v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., D.C. No.
03-N-0184, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Edward
Nottingham presiding.

FTC Chairman Timothy Muris stated in his
prepared
testimony that "U.S. District Judge Nottingham in Denver ruled that the Do
Not Call Registry offends the First Amendment because it makes a content-based
distinction between its treatment of commercial telemarketing calls to sell
goods or services and noncommercial calls soliciting charitable contributions.
We believe that as a matter of law this decision is incorrect, and are therefore
confident of ultimate success on appeal. Nevertheless, this legal dispute could
take years to resolve. In the meantime, the status of the Registry is
unsettled."

He said that "it is unclear the extent to which Judge Nottingham's decision
permits the FCC to access the Registry for enforcement or companies under FCC
jurisdiction to access the Registry for compliance with the FCC's rules."

He added that the Colorado ruling "threatens the ability of the states with
do not call laws to enforce them".

He concluded that "We believe that the FTC is likely to succeed on the merits
of its appeal because the district court's decision reached an unprecedented
conclusion that telemarketers have a constitutional right to continue
telemarketing calls to consumers who have indicated that they do not want these
calls. This holding is at odds with the relevant Supreme Court cases.
Specifically, the court erred in its application of
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York
..." (See, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).)

"I believe our rules will withstand Constitutional challenge. In the end, I
am simply unwilling to accept the notion that the First Amendment unavoidably
bars the American people from deciding who calls them in the privacy of their
own homes. I assure you that the full resources of the FCC are committed to
defending our rules and taking any steps necessary to effectively implement and
enforce them, to the full extent permissible by law."

He elaborated that "More than ten years ago, Congress vested the Federal
Communications Commission with broad authority to protect consumers from
unwanted calls. In our June order, we expanded on that effort. Last week, when
these rules were challenged in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court
specifically refused to block our rules. It held that
``on the record presented ... [the
telemarketing industry] ha[d] failed to establish a likelihood of success on the
merits." Citing the strong public interest in leaving these rules in place, the
Court made clear that the rules should go forward. Most recently, the Supreme
Court yesterday declined to disturb the Court's ruling." (Brackets in original.)

He added that "as a practical matter, challenges to the FTC's rules affect
the enforcement of our rules because the statute instructed the two agencies to
work in partnership with one another to achieve our common consumer protection
goals. Over the past week, three district court decisions (the most recent
issued last night) addressing the FTC's rules have introduced confusion with
regard to the implementation and enforcement of the national Do-Not-Call
Registry. The Colorado district court's order last night has raised questions
about the FCC's ability to enforce the list. Most directly, to the extent the
court's ruling prevents the FCC from accessing the FTC's database, our
enforcement efforts may be hampered."

Gerald Cerasale, SVP of the Direct Marketers Association,
stated in his
prepared testimony that "We continue to believe that the FTC list is fatally
flawed by important constitutional defects." He also offered several benefits of
telemarketing. He asserted that "many American consumers respond favorably to
telemarketing", that "telemarketing provides employment to many Americans", and
that it "adds competitiveness to the U.S. economy. It provides information on
new products and services and on prices".

Cerasale also raised several objections to the do not call registry. He
stated that "it is imperative that the registration process ensures the accuracy
of telephone numbers that are placed on the do-not-call registry. Internet
registration is subject to abuse. It is our understanding and belief that there
are not sufficient protections in place in connection with Internet registration
to: (1) verify that the numbers were submitted by the persons to whom the
numbers are assigned; (2) determine whether the individual submitting the number
has permission to submit the numbers; or (3) determine that the numbers are not
business numbers (which are not candidates for inclusion on the registry)."
(Parentheses in original.) He also stated that there should be only one do not
call registry, but there remain in effect state do not call registries."

District Court Rules on Internet
Jurisdiction

9/30. The U.S. District Court (DMd)
issued an
opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Electronic Broking v. E-Business Solutions, a
case regarding personal jurisdiction based on internet activity.

The complaint alleges
federal trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act,
15 U.S.C. §1125(a),
and unfair competition arising from the defendants' alleged use of the trademark
"Electronic Broking Services, Limited" in connection with the sale of electronic
products and services to the banking and financial services industry. The
defendants also had a customer in the state of Maryland, where the complaint was
filed.

The Court concluded that the "Defendants' contacts with Maryland
do not rise to the level of ``minimum contacts´´ necessary to constitutionally
subject them to either general or specific personal jurisdiction in this court.
There is no evidence that they directed E-Business Solutions' semiinteractive
website into Maryland with the explicit intent of targeting Maryland residents,
nor do their Internet activities amount to the type of ``continuous and
systematic´´ contacts required for general jurisdiction. Although the defendants
have engaged in business with one Maryland corporation, which they contend was
related to matters in Africa, Electronic Broking has failed to allege facts
regarding the nature and extent of such business dealings sufficient to show a
"substantial connection" between the defendants and Maryland. Furthermore,
asserting jurisdiction over the defendants in this forum would violate
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice given the considerable
burden on the defendants and the limited interests of the plaintiff and the
forum in adjudicating the dispute in Maryland."

9/30. Sen. Max Baucus
(D-MT) gave a
speech [5 pages in PDF] ... in which he addressed trade with the Middle
East. He observed that "the true dawn of the information age occurred not in
Silicon Valley, but in the Middle East, where mathematicians first conceived the
idea of the number zero." He stated that "The President's initiative
now seeks to engage the Middle East economically by negotiating a free trade area in the
Middle East by 2013. This is an excellent idea. It would re-ignite economic
growth and expand opportunity in both the United States and the Middle East." He
also promoted S 1121,
the "Middle East Trade and Engagement Act", which he introduced, along
with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He said
that "Our bill gives the President the power to allow countries in what we term
the ``Greater Middle East´´ that meet certain conditions -- such as supporting the war on
terrorism and reforming their economies -- to export products to the United States
duty free."

9/30. Trade representatives of Western Hemisphere nations began a four day
meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. The
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) stated in a
release [PDF] the
the purpose of this meeting is "to lay the final preparatory groundwork" for the
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) ministerial to be held in Miami, Florida
in November.

9/30. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir)
issued its en banc
opinion in EEOC v. Luce Forward, holding that employers (in
this case, a law firm) that require employees to sign arbitration agreements do
not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the 1991
Act.

Luce Forward is a large California law firm
that required employees, as a condition for employment, to sign an
agreement to submit disputes arising out of their employment to binding arbitration.
This is significant because the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1991,
provides for trial by jury of employment discrimination claims.

Luce Forward refused to hire as a legal secretary a person who refused to sign
the agreement. He filed a complaint in state court. The
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) also filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court (CDCal)
on his behalf alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Equal Pay Act of 1963
(EPA). The focus of this case is Title VII.

The District Court refused, on res judicata grounds, to award
make whole relief and rejected the EEOC’s request for injunctive relief under
the ADA, the ADEA, and the EPA. However, the District Court enjoined Luce Forward
from requiring applicants to agree to arbitrate Title VII claims and from
enforcing existing agreements to arbitrate those claims. See, 122 F. Supp. 2d 1080.

A three judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that employers
may require employees to sign agreements to arbitrate Title VII claims as a
condition of their employment.

The majority of the en banc panel wrote that while it disagreed with the three
judge panel's "conclusion that Circuit City implicitly overruled Duffield, we
need not explore that disagreement in detail. It suffices to note that the panel
opinion has been withdrawn. Id. We now conclude that, although Circuit City did not
overrule Duffield, Duffield was wrongly decided; we therefore overrule it ourselves.

And, since the en banc panel overruled Duffield, it reversed the judgment of
the District Court insofar as it granted the EEOC’s request for injunctive
relief. It added that "With regard to the EEOC's request for injunctive relief on its
retaliation theory, we remand this issue to the district court to address in the
first instance."

Judge Pregerson (joined by Schroeder and Reinhardt) wrote a partial
dissent. He wrote that "Congress in enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1991 did not
intend that employers could force their employees as a mandatory condition of employment
to forego their right to bring future Title VII claims in a court of law."
He added that, in overruling Duffield, "the majority opinion allows employers to
force their employees to choose between their jobs and their right to bring future
Title VII claims in court. That choice is no choice at all."

Judge Reinhardt (joined by Pregerson) wrote a separate dissent.

More News

9/30. President Bush signed
HJRes 69,
the Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004. See, White House
release.

9/30. The Federal Election
Commission (FEC) announced that it has assessed administrative fines against
48 party committees, candidate committees, and political action committees
(PACs) for the late or non-filing of reports required by the Federal Election
Commission Act (FECA). The FEC fined several technology related PACs, including
Level 3 Communications Inc. Political Action Committee ($375), EDS Political
Action Committee ($1,000), NCR Corporation Citizenship Fund ($1,000), T-Mobile
Political Action Committee ($1,000), and VENTUREPAC ($6,000). Each of these
fines was for the late or non-filing of the 12 Day Pre-General 2002 reports.
See, FEC release.

9/30. Microsoft announced that it reached
a settlement agreement resolving antitrust litigation pending in the
U.S. District Court (DMd) involving direct
purchasers of certain Windows software. See, Microsoft
release.

He wrote that "The FCC will enforce its Do-not-call rules against
telemarketers that have obtained the Do-Not-Call list from the FTC, beginning
Wednesday. The FCC rules complement and expand on those of the FTC. FCC rules
have not been disturbed by recent court cases. Last week, the 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals refused to block the rules pending review -- as the telemarketing
industry had urged -- citing the strong public interest of leaving the rules in
place. The Commission intends to continue to administer and enforce its rules to
the fullest extent possible as the litigation proceeds."

And, on September 29, President Bush signed
HR 3161,
a bill authorizing the FTC to implement a national do not call registry. The
House passed the bill on September 25 by a vote of 412-8. See,
Roll
Call No. 521. Later in the day, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 95-0. See,
Roll Call No. 365.

The Congress passed this bill in immediate response to the September 24
Order [19
page PDF scan] of the U.S. District Court
(DOkla) in U.S. Security v. FTC, holding that the FTC's rule creating
a do not call registry exceeds the statutory authority of the FTC.

President Bush gave a
speech at the signing ceremony. Sen.
Ted Stevens (R-AK), a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee,
Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA), the
Chairman of the House Commerce Committee,
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the Chairman of the Telecom and Internet
Subcommittee, and Rep. Ed Markey
(D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, attended the event.

Bush stated that "The reason they're here is they acted to a response
from the judiciary. They
acted, as well, because the American people clearly like the idea of a Do Not
Call Registry. After all, since the first sign-up day three months ago,
Americans have entered over 50 million telephone numbers in the Do Not Call
Registry."

He continued that "Last week, a federal judge objected to the Do Not Call Registry on the
grounds that Congress had not authorized its creation. So the House and the
Senate authorized its creation. You acted swiftly and I want to congratulate you
very much, it's a really good action. The Senate voted 95-0, the House 412-8,
this affirmed the decision by the FTC and it's affirmed the wishes of the
American people."

Bush added that "The Do Not Call Registry is still being challenged in court. Yet, the
conclusion of the American people and the legislative branch and the executive
branch is beyond question. So today I'm pleased to sign this important piece of
legislation into law."

Bush also stated that the FCC is "ably headed by Michael Powell" and the FTC
is "ably headed by Tim Muris".

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the
ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee stated in a
release
that "I am confident the courts will ultimately overturn these errant court
decisions that run counter to the wishes of millions of Americans,” said ranking
member Dingell. “In the interim, I encourage the Federal Communications
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission to take whatever steps necessary
under the law to protect the privacy of consumers who do not want unsolicited
calls at home."

GPC filed its first petition (No. 02-1022) after the the FCC's Cable Service
Bureau (CSB) had issued an order reducing GPC's rental rate, and after GPC had
sought review by the full Commission, but before the Commission had acted. The
Appeals Court dismissed this petition as premature. See,
opinion [7
pages in PDF].

GPC filed its second petition (No. 02-15608) after the full Commission
affirmed the CSB's order. The Appeals Court denied this petition. See,
opinion
[30 pages in PDF].

No. 02-15608. In this longer
opinion
the Appeals Court reviewed the history of the 1978 Pole Attachments Act, the
pole access provisions of the 1996 Telecom Act, opinions of the 11th Circuit,
and the FCC's implementing rules and decisions. (The statute is now codified at
47 U.S.C. § 224.)

In October 2000, GPC notified Teleport Communications Atlanta that it was
imposing an annual pole attachment rate of $53.35. Teleport filed a complaint
with the FCC arguing that the rate was in excess of the maximum rate permissible
under the Pole Attachment Act. GPC argued that the FCC formula failed to provide
just compensation because it relied on historical costs rather than fair market
value. The CSB, which is now a part of the FCC's
Media Bureau, struck GPC's rate. GPC filed
an application for administrative
review. However, before the FCC acted on this application, GPC filed its first
petition for review with the 11th Circuit (No. 02-10222). After the full
Commission affirmed the CSB order, GPC filed its second petition for review (No.
02-15608). Teleport intervened in both proceedings.

In this second petition (No. 02-15608), GPC challenged the FCC's
order affirming a decision of the FCC's CSB which reduced GPC's $53.35 annual
pole rental rate to between $6.56 and $8.24. GPC argued that the FCC acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in numerous ways when it ruled on the pole
attachment rate dispute between GPC and intervenor Teleport. The Appeals Court
held that the FCC did not act arbitrarily or
capriciously, and therefore denied the petition for review.

This proceeding is Georgia Power Company v. Federal Communications
Commission and U.S.A, respondents, and Teleport Communications Atlanta, Inc.,
intervenor, No. 02-15608, a petition for review of an order of the FCC in FCC
Docket No. PA 00-005.

No. 02-10222. In this brief
opinion,
the Appeals Court dismissed GPC's first petition for review as premature.

The Court wrote that there are just two issues in this
proceeding: "First, should the intervenors' brief in support of Georgia Power be
stricken because it injects new issues into this appeal? Second, should the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) motion to dismiss be granted because
Georgia Power acted prematurely in filing the first petition?"

First, the Appeals Court ruled that the intervenors' brief must
be striken. It wrote that "In its first petition, Georgia Power complained that
the proper method for determining just compensation must use the replacement
costs, not the historical costs. It argued that, unless replacement costs are
used, the FCC formula denies Georgia Power just compensation for the taking
mandated by the Telecommunications Act." In contrast, "In their briefs on the
first petition, the utility intervenors raise a different argument. They claim
that only the courts can determine just compensation for a taking and that FCC
can play no role in awarding just compensation to Georgia Power."

The Appeals Court held both that "an intervenor is precluded
from raising issues not raised by the principal parties", and that "this
argument has been raised before, and we have rejected it". It therefore granted
the FCC's motion to dismiss the intervenors' brief.

Second, the Appeals Court ruled that Georgia Power's first
petition is premature, and must be dismissed. The Court held that since Georgia
Power filed the present petition (02-10222) after the CSB had issued its order,
but before the Commission had an opportunity to rule on the application for
review, and only final agency actions are subject to judicial review, there was
no final agency action, and the petition for review is premature.

The Court elaborated that "Georgia Power can get judicial review
of the Cable Services Bureau’s order only if both of the following two
conditions are satisfied: (1) it files an application for review by the full
Commission, and (2) the relevant order becomes final. Unfortunately for Georgia
Power, satisfying the first condition makes a ruling from the full FCC the only
means of satisfying the second condition. The Cable Services Bureau’s order
would become final if Georgia Power did not file an application for review, but
once it files an application for review, the subordinate unit’s order is
non-final, and hence non-reviewable ..."

This proceeding is Georgia Power Company v. Federal
Communications Commission and U.S.A, respondents, and Teleport Communications
Atlanta, Inc., Duke Energy Corp., American Electric Power Service Corp.,
intervenors, No. 02-10222, a petition for review of an order of the FCC's CSB in
FCC Docket No. PA 00-005.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit does not have
exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for review in pole attachments cases. It
just appears that it does. The three judge panel for both of these opinion was
comprised of Judges Black, Marcus and Middlebrooks. Judge Black wrote both
opinion.

9/29. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's
(USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) announced that it unveiled
TTABVue. The USPTO
describes this as "a system that allows users to view images of documents
relating to trademark disputes on the Internet. TTABVue includes images of most
documents filed since January 2003. Some earlier records covering the period
June 2001 to January 2003 also are available." See, USPTO
release.

9/29. Carly Fiorina, CEO of Hewlett Packard,
gave a lofty
speech in Detroit, Michigan in which she addressed the history of, and
economic prospects for, "the Arab world" and "the Islamic world", and how
information technology can create opportunities. She said that "for all that
technology means in countries like the U.S., its potential is even greater for
regions like the Middle East. As we've seen, our newest technology applied to
solutions like telemedicine, teleagriculture, and distance learning has a unique
ability to help countries leapfrog years of development, to close the gap
between technology-empowered communities and technology-excluded communities."
She concluded that "We really do believe that if we focus on the possibilities
and not just the problems; if we focus on the economics, and not just the
politics of the Arab world -- within a generation, we really will see education
for everyone, with schools that are totally networked, and students and parents
who interact over the Internet."

Federal Circuit Rules in Festo on Remand

9/26. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir)
issued its en banc opinion [MS
Word] on remand in Festo v.
Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki, a patent case regarding the doctrine
of equivalents and the rule of prosecution history estoppel.

On May 28, 2002, the
Supreme Court issued its
opinion [21 pages in PDF] reversing the Court of Appeals and remanding. The Supreme Court
affirmed the doctrine of equivalents, articulated its
purpose, held that the narrowing of a patent claim may give rise to prosecution
history estoppel (but that it does not absolutely bar application of the
doctrine of equivalents), and listed circumstances under which it might or might
not operate as a bar. See, story titled "Supreme Court Reverses in Festo Case"
in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No.439, May 29, 2002.

The Appeals Court wrote in this opinion on remand that "The sole issue specifically before us is
whether Festo can rebut the presumption that the filing of narrowing amendments
for the two patents in suit surrendered all subject matter between the original
claim limitations and the amended claim limitations."

It concluded that "Festo
cannot overcome that presumption by demonstrating that the rationale underlying
the narrowing amendments bore no more than a tangential relation to the accused
equivalents or by demonstrating that there was ``some
other reason´´ such that the patentee could
not reasonably have been expected to have described the accused equivalents.
However, we remand to the district court to determine whether Festo can rebut
the presumption of surrender by establishing that the equivalents in question
would have been unforeseeable to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the amendments."

Judge Pauline Newman dissented at length. She wrote that this opinion "places new and
costly burdens on inventors, and reduces the incentive value of patents. By
adopting a generous interpretation of the scope of surrender, and stinginess
toward its rebuttal, the ensuing framework is one that few patentees can
survive."

On April 25, 2003, the U.S. District
Court (CDCal) issued its
opinion holding that Grokster's and Streamcast's peer to peer file copying
networks do not contributorily or vacariously infringe the copyrights of the
holders of music and movie copyrights. See, story titled "District Court Holds
No Contributory or Vicarious Infringement by Grokster or Streamcast P2P
Networks" in TLJ
Daily E-Mail Alert No. 650, April 28, 2003. See also,
story
titled "Music Publishers File Appeal Brief in P2P Infringement Case", also
published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 724, August 22, 2003.

The CCIA argues that "This case is about more than the legality of
peer-to-peer software. It is about the future of the information technology
(``IT´´) industry, the Internet, and the fair use of digital works."

"The legal foundation upon which the IT industry stands is the Supreme
Court’s decision in Sony Corp.
of America v. Universal City Studios ... In Betamax, the Supreme Court
proclaimed that the manufacturer of a product could not be held secondarily
liable for infringing uses of the product so long as the product was capable of
substantial noninfringing uses. That clear standard gave venture capitalists,
engineers, and manufacturers the confidence and certainty that they could invest
their resources in developing a wide range of consumer IT products without
facing copyright liability. These products include personal computers, laptops,
scanners, printers, and the software that enables them to operate."

Finally, the CCIA states that "Appellants claim that the
District Court's decision leaves them powerless to combat infringement over P2P
networks. Two recent developments prove the opposite." The CCIA states that the
Recording Industry Association of America
(RIAA) has successfully reduced infringement by bringing lawsuits against
individual infringers. It also states that the "legal downloads of sound
recordings are finally available in a low cost, user-friendly manner."

FTC Appeals District Court Ruling That Do No
Call Registry Violates 1st Amendment

9/26. In addition to Mainstream Marketing Services v. FCC (D.C.
Colorado) and CompTel v. FCC (U.S.C.A., D.C.), there are several other
proceeding related to the do not call registry, telemarketing practices, and
consumer complaints about telemarketers.

On September 26, the Tenth Circuit denied MMS's request for a stay of the
FCC's do not call order, holding
that it had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on
the merits.

This is Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc., TMG Marketing, and American
Teleservices Association, Appeals Court No. 03-9571. These telemarketers are
represented by Robert Corn-Revere.

U.S. Security v. FTC (U.S.D.C., W.D. Okla). U.S. Security, and other
telemarketing related entities, filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court
(WDOkla) against the FTC. On September 24, the District Court issued its
Order [19
page PDF scan] holding that the FTC's rule creating
a do not call registry exceeds the statutory authority of the FTC.

This was a matter of statutory interpretation, so the Congress was able to
render the District Court's order moot by amending the statute to make clear
that the FTC has authority to implement a do not call registry. See, HR 3161,
which was passed by both the House and Senate on September 25.

The Act requires departments and
agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments (PIAs) "before -- (i)
developing or procuring information technology that collects, maintains, or
disseminates information that is in an identifiable form; or (ii) initiating a
new collection of information that -- (I) will be collected, maintained, or
disseminated using information technology; and (II) includes any information in
an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific
individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting
requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than agencies,
instrumentalities, or employees of the Federal Government."

This memorandum provides
detailed guidance regarding PIAs for electronic information systems and
collections, including when to conduct PIAs, when PIAs are not required, how to
conduct PIAs, and what to address in PIAs.

The memorandum also provides detailed guidance regarding privacy policies on
agency websites used by the public. The memorandum sets a
deadline of December 15, 2003 for departments and agencies to adopt website
privacy policies.

HR 2548 in
the 107th Congress, titled "The E-Government Act of 2002", was signed on
December 17, 2002, and became effective on April 17, 2003. It is Public Law
107-347. It is codified at 44 U.S.C. Ch. 36. Section 208 of the Act, which is
attached as Exhibit B to the OMB memorandum, contains privacy provisions, and
requires the Director of the OMB to issue implementing guidelines.

More News

9/26.
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan
gave a
speech to the 33rd Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black
Caucus in Washington DC. He stated that today, "the advance of
telecommunications technologies and the development of other new technological
tools have broadened the availability of credit and other banking services. More
generally, these advances mean consumers must be familiar with the role that
computers play in the conduct of every traditional financial transaction, from
withdrawing funds to borrowing." He added that "household and business borrowers
have benefited from the technological developments that have enhanced financial
services, and their remarkable growth. Computer and telecommunications
technologies have lowered the cost and broadened the scope of such services."

9/26. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) published a
notice in the Federal Register announcing and summarizing new regulations
implementing the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act of 2002, and
amendments to existing regulations both to implement the Act and revise the
procedures for processing trademark applications and
conducting proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The new
rules take effect on November 2, 2003. See, Federal Register: September 26,
2003, Vol. 68, No. 187, at Pages 55747 - 55781. The Congress enacted this Act as
a part of HR 2215
(107th), a bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of
Justice for FY 2002, and other purposes.

9/26. Sen. Max Baucus
(D-MT), the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Finance Committee, and nine other Senators, wrote a
letter [2 pages in PDF] to President Bush arguing that "Taiwan should
be under consideration for a free trade agreement with the United States." And
more generally, the letter inquires "What are the criteria for determining
whether to negotiate a free trade agreement?"